Alleged Serious and Significant Offences (Diplomatic Immunity)

Boris Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 11th October 2017 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)]

In 2016,12 serious and significant offences allegedly committed by people entitled to diplomatic or international organisation-related immunity in the United Kingdom were drawn to the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office by Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection of the Metropolitan Police Service, or other law enforcement agencies. Eight of these were driving-related. We define serious offences as those which could, in certain circumstances, carry a penalty of 12 months’ imprisonment or more. Also included are drink-driving and driving without insurance.

Around 22,500 people are entitled to diplomatic immunity in the United Kingdom and the majority of diplomats abide by UK law. The number of alleged serious crimes committed by members of the diplomatic community in the UK is proportionately low.

Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961, those entitled to immunity are expected to obey the law. The FCO does not tolerate foreign diplomats breaking the law.

We take all allegations of illegal activity seriously. When instances of alleged criminal conduct are brought to our attention by the police, we ask the relevant foreign government to waive diplomatic immunity where appropriate. For the most serious offences, and when a relevant waiver has not been granted, we seek the immediate withdrawal of the diplomat.

Alleged serious and significant offences reported to the FCO in 2016 are listed below.

2016

Driving without insurance

Qatar 1

Driving without insurance (or an MOT, and not in accordance with a licence)

Saudi Arabia 1

Driving without insurance (and not in accordance with a licence)

Guinea 1

Pakistan 1

Driving under the influence of alcohol

Botswana 1

Russia 2

Driving under the influence of alcohol (using a hand-held mobile telephone or other hand-held interactive communication device when driving)

Saudi Arabia 1

Actual bodily harm^(a)

Libya 1

Possession of a class B drug with intent to supply^(a)

Libya 1

Possession of an offensive weapon^(a)

Libya 1

^(a)These are allegations made against the same person.

The following offence was also reported to the FCO in 2016 and the offender’s criminal conduct was proven in a court of law.

Sexual Assault

European Bank of Reconstruction and Development 1

We also wish to record that in 2016 a former attaché at the Canadian High Commission was convicted at Southwark Crown Court of three counts of making indecent photographs/pseudo-photograph of a child; one count of possessing a prohibited image of a child; one count of possessing an extreme pornographic image; and one count of failing to comply with a section 49 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act notice. The former attaché was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment. These offences were not recorded in last year’s written ministerial statement because the case was then sub-judice and their previous inclusion might have prejudiced the outcome of criminal proceedings.

Figures for previous years are available in the Secretary for State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs’ written statement to the House on 21 July 2016, Official Report, column 40WS [HCWS106] .

[HCWS155]

Hong Kong: Sino-British Joint Declaration

Boris Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2017 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)]

The latest six-monthly report on the implementation of the Sino-British joint declaration on Hong Kong was published today, and can be found as an online attachment. It covers the period from 1 January to 30 June 2017.

The report has been placed in the Library of the House. A copy is also available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/foreign-commonwealth-office.

I commend the report to the House.

Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament. uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2017-09-14/HCWS131/

[HCWS131]

Lebanon: Border Assistance

Boris Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2017 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)]

The United Kingdom is strongly committed to supporting Lebanon’s peace, stability and prosperity. Through a long-standing Conflict Stability and Security Fund project worth £22.6 million over three years, the UK is helping the Lebanese armed forces (LAF) secure the Lebanon-Syria border. This includes building 30 border watchtowers and over 20 forward operating bases along the border. Our ambition is for Lebanon to have complete authority over its border with Syria.

In order to reach this objective, in August this year, the British embassy in Beirut placed an order worth £1,818,096.02 for equipment—“Hesco” border defensive barriers—to support the construction of LAF Land Border Regiment towers. The decision was taken to order the materials in August, albeit during the parliamentary recess, to ensure that the materials would arrive in time to allow construction before winter.

The provision of this assistance is fully in line with the Government’s security and stability objectives in the middle east. FCO officials carry out regular reviews of our programmes in Lebanon to ensure funding is not directed to non-state actors.

[HCWS118]

Korean Peninsula

Boris Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)]

With permission, I should like to make a statement about the situation on the Korean peninsula.

At noon on Sunday, local time, North Korea tested the most powerful nuclear device ever detonated in the history of the regime’s quest for an illegal arsenal. The underground explosion at a testing site only 60 miles from the Chinese border triggered an earthquake measuring up to 6.3 on the Richter scale—10 times more powerful than the tremor created by the last detonation. The regime claimed to have exploded a hydrogen bomb capable of being delivered on an intercontinental ballistic missile. We should treat that claim with scepticism, but the House must be under no illusion that this latest test marks another perilous advance in North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. In a country blighted by decades of communist economic failure, where in the 1990s hundreds of thousands of people died of starvation or were reduced to eating grass and leaves to survive, the regime has squandered its resources on building an illegal armoury of nuclear bombs. The House will want to join me in condemning a nuclear test that poses a grave threat to the security of every country in east Asia and the wider world.

Earlier today, the North Korean ambassador was summoned to the Foreign Office to receive a formal protest. Members will recall the steady drumbeat of provocative and dangerous actions by Kim Jong-un’s regime. Last year, North Korea tested two nuclear weapons and launched 24 missiles. So far this year, the regime has fired 18 missiles, including two of intercontinental range. Indeed, three tests have taken place since the House rose in July. On Monday last week, a missile flew over Japan, causing sirens to sound on Hokkaido and forcing thousands of people to take cover. The regime has threatened to launch more missiles towards the US Pacific territory of Guam, which is home to 180,000 people and two military bases. I commend the dignity and restraint shown by South Korea and Japan, the countries which find themselves in the firing line of Pyongyang’s reckless ambitions.

North Korea’s brazen defiance has brought universal condemnation. When the UN Security Council met in emergency session yesterday, every member, including China and Russia, denounced the latest nuclear test. Britain has been at the heart of mobilising world opinion with the aim of achieving a diplomatic solution. Last week, I spoke to my Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, and the Japanese Foreign Minister, Taro Kono. A few hours after the nuclear test on Sunday, I spoke to the South Korean Foreign Minister, Kang Kyung-wha, and I have of course been in regular contact with Secretary Tillerson of the United States.

During the Prime Minister’s highly successful visit to Tokyo last week, my right hon. Friend made clear our solidarity with Japan as it faces this grave threat. Just as North Korea has pursued nuclear weapons with single-minded determination, so the international community must show the same resolve in our pursuit of a diplomatic solution. We should not be diverted by arguments that equate the illegal and aggressive actions of Pyongyang with the legitimate and defensive military exercises of South Korea and the United States. North Korea has caused this crisis and the onus rests squarely on Kim Jong-un’s regime to obey international law and meet their obligations to disarm.

All hopes for progress rest on international co-operation, and there are some encouraging signs. On 5 August, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2371, including the toughest sanctions ever imposed on North Korea, banning exports of coal, seafood, iron ore and lead. If fully enforced, those new measures would cost Pyongyang about $1 billion—one third of that country’s total export earnings—reducing the resources available for nuclear weapons. We are now pressing the Security Council to pass a new resolution, as swiftly as possible, imposing further sanctions and showing the unity and determination of the international community.

China, which accounts for 90% of North Korea’s overseas trade, has a unique ability to influence the North Korean regime, and the House can take heart from the fact that Beijing voted in favour of the latest sanctions resolution and condemned Pyongyang’s actions in the most unsparing terms. North Korea’s nuclear device was not only tested near China’s border but was detonated on the day President Xi Jinping opened a summit in Xiamen with the leaders of Russia, India, Brazil and South Africa. I call on China to use all its leverage to ensure a peaceful settlement of this grave crisis.

Kim Jong-un claims to want security and prosperity for North Korea’s people. The only way to achieve that goal would be for North Korea to obey the UN and halt its nuclear weapon and ballistic missile programmes, disarming in a complete and verifiable manner. Britain stands alongside our allies in striving to achieve that goal, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Before I respond to the Foreign Secretary, I am sure the whole House will join me in sending our thoughts to the families of all those killed over the summer in the terrorist attacks in Barcelona and across the world, including seven-year-old Julian Cadman. Given the subject we are discussing, it does us all well to remember that some 8 million children like Julian, under the age of 10, live on the Korean peninsula today.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement, and I join him in unreservedly condemning North Korea for the flagrant breaches of international law that have brought us to this sorry pass. I have three questions prompted by his statement. First, although he mentioned the new sanctions regime agreed on 5 August, he will know that we are still in the early stages of enforcing the last set of sanctions agreed last November. Indeed, only 80 countries have so far submitted implementation reports on the new sanctions regime, so how does he propose to ensure that these new sanctions are implemented quickly and effectively and given time to work?

Secondly, on the strategy outlined by the Foreign Secretary, he will have seen the article today by his predecessor, William Hague, considering whether the strategic goal will eventually shift from preventing North Korea achieving nuclear capability to accepting that that capability exists and seeking, in some form, to contain it. Does the Foreign Secretary agree with his predecessor? Has the Foreign Office planned for that scenario?

Thirdly, given the threat to Japan and South Korea, the Foreign Secretary will be aware of the suggestion that they should now be allowed to develop their own nuclear weapons as a response to Pyongyang. Does he agree with me that that would be utter madness? Surely it cannot be a serious suggestion that the world’s response to North Korea breaching the non-proliferation treaty should be to encourage other countries to do the same. Surely our goal must be the denuclearisation of the entire region.

Beyond the substance of the Foreign Secretary’s statement, I welcome its careful and judicious tone. After a summer of utterly reckless rhetoric from Washington and Pyongyang, we urgently need some cool heads and calm words, especially now that we have drifted from that dangerous escalation of rhetoric into the even more dangerous escalation of actions. With every ratcheting up of words and deeds, the risk grows. That escalation will lead to miscalculation and a war will begin, not by design but by default.

Faced with that situation, we are told that all options remain under consideration and that no options have been ruled out, but if any of those options risks 10 million people in Seoul being, in the Foreign Secretary’s words, “vaporised”, or similar devastation in North Korea and Japan, we have to say that those options should be in the bin. The reality is that the only sane option is, as William Hague wrote today, dialogue and diplomacy. That means a deliberate de-escalation of rhetoric and actions, it means properly enforcing the new sanctions regime, and it means restarting the six-party talks to seek a new and lasting settlement.

Yet we have a US ambassador to the UN who says,

“the time for talk is over.”

We have a President who says,

“talking is not the answer”.

Although in his case I would usually be inclined to agree, for the US to turn its back on diplomacy at this stage is simply irresponsible and, as its closest ally, we must be prepared to say so.

Although we welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, the real test is what comes next. Will Britain be a voice of calm and reason on the world stage? Will we ally ourselves with Angela Merkel? She told the German Parliament today:

“there can only be a peaceful and diplomatic solution”.

If the answer is yes, and if that is the route the Government take, they will have our full support; but if they pretend that military options involving decapitation, annihilation, fire and fury belong anywhere but in the bin, and if they swear blind loyalty to Donald Trump no matter what abyss he drags us towards, they will be risking a hell of a lot more than just losing our support. I urge the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues to remain calm and judicious in their approach, to discount all so-called military solutions and to steer a course towards the only options that work: dialogue, diplomacy and peace.

[Boris Johnson]

I join the right hon. Lady in the sentiments she expresses about the victims of terror across our continent over the summer months. There is a lot in her reply with which I agree, and she is certainly right to commend a measured tone in these things. In her focus on Washington and the pronouncements of Donald Trump, it is important that we do not allow anything to distract this House from the fundamental responsibility of Pyongyang for causing this crisis. It is a great shame that there should be any suggestion of any kind of equivalence in the confrontation—I am sure she did not mean to imply that—and it is important that we do not allow that to creep into our considerations.

The current situation is so grave because it is the first time in the history of nuclear weaponry that a non-P5 country seems to be on the brink of acquiring the ability to use an ICBM equipped with a nuclear warhead. This is a very grave situation, which explains why we are told, and we must agree, that theoretically no options are off the table, but it is also essential—the right hon. Lady is right about this—that we pursue the peaceful diplomatic resolution that we all want.

In the history of North Korea’s attempts to acquire a nuclear weapon over the past 30 years there have been flare-ups and crises, and then they have been managed down again. We hope that in the UN, with the help of our Chinese friends and the rest of the international community, we can once again freeze this North Korean nuclear programme and manage the crisis down again. I share the emphasis on peaceful resolution that the right hon. Lady espouses.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. I associate myself very much with his hopes, but I should lay out some of my concerns.

I find myself, for the first time, talking in this House about nuclear weapons that may be used, because we are talking not about a state but about a family cult with a kingdom. This is a very different type of relationship between the leaders and the led. It is a country that is prepared to see its people starve and is perfectly happy to see them literally eat grass. We are not dealing with a rational actor. That imposes an enormous amount on Her Majesty’s Government, of course, and on partners in the region.

I particularly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s conversation with the Chinese. What indications are there that they are prepared actually to apply the sanctions to which they have agreed? At the moment, the indications are poor. As we are one of the few nations with an embassy in Pyongyang, what assistance is our ambassador there giving to other members of the Security Council? This is a time for as much openness as possible among allies, in order to manage a very dangerous situation. Perhaps I may ask a more specific question, given the proximity of our relationship with the United States: will the Foreign Secretary mention the presence, or otherwise, of British troops serving alongside American troops in South Korea and Japan? Will he discuss whether those embeds are in any way operationally involved in the American chain, and whether or not they would be? This is a moment for the Helsinki example of the 1980s. I very much hope he can find a way for the supports to Kennedy and Khrushchev to be seen today.

[Boris Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his compendious question. He rightly says that we are one of the few countries to have an embassy in Pyongyang—we are the only P3 country with an embassy there. As such, we are determined to keep that embassy going, and I hope the House will share our determination to keep it going, along with support for other P5 countries, and for other western interests in that city and in North Korea. Let me pick out his most important question; I do not wish to comment on British forces’ operational activities. I think he is really driving at the question of whether the Chinese have yet played all the cards they have in their hand. China controls 93% of North Korea’s external trade. It is a simple fact that North Korea is wholly dependent on imported oil. In the end, the Chinese do have much further to go on this. There are ways in which they can tighten the economic ligature; they can make more of a difference. The question in their minds is whether they can do that without incurring serious political convulsions within North Korea. We think there is room for further Chinese effort. We are working with our Chinese friends to persuade them to do this. To be fair to the Chinese, I must say that they have shown a much greater willingness than they have hitherto to understand the threat that North Korea poses and to take action. To that extent, the Chinese should be commended.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

It is very apparent that the international community needs to act immediately to ensure that all sides exercise restraint and return to diplomatic dialogue. The most effective means of reducing tensions would be for the North Korean regime to immediately suspend its nuclear development and testing, and we join the majority of the international community in urging it to do just that. We also take note of the numerous calls for even tougher UN sanctions to be imposed on North Korea. However, to be most effective, increased sanctions should be accompanied by reinforced six-party talks and renewed efforts to reach a peaceful diplomatic solution. Moreover, the UK Government must use their much-vaunted “special relationship” with the United States and influence their friend Donald Trump to drastically calm his rhetoric. If that relationship is worth anything—if the UK has any sort of genuine influence in the White House—the UK Government must use it now to walk President Trump back from the unacceptable threats he has made and to bring some modicum of rationality to his dialogue. If the UK Government are unable or unwilling to make a constructive intervention, that would make a mockery of the so-called “special relationship” and of the much-vaunted “global Britain”.

Finally, this crisis is a stark reminder of the danger posed by nuclear weapons and must be harnessed to intensify efforts towards multilateral disarmament and achieving global zero. The recent UN treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons was a major achievement. Will the UK Government therefore take this opportunity to demonstrate real leadership on the international stage, and show that to all of us, by choosing to become the first nuclear-armed state to sign the UN treaty and to commit to legally binding nuclear disarmament? It is worth reiterating that the people of Scotland live side by side with nuclear weapons every day. On their behalf, my colleagues and I in the Scottish National party urge the UK Government to sign up to the UN treaty without delay.

[Boris Johnson]

On the American point, let me just say that it is vital that we keep the focus of our attention on Pyongyang’s primacy of responsibility for causing this crisis; anything else is a distraction. As for nuclear disarmament, let me make a comment I might direct to those on the Opposition Benches: surely to goodness this crisis shows the folly of unilateral nuclear disarmament. That is one of their policies and it would open up this country and others to nuclear blackmail from North Korea.

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

It is more than 10 years since the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea tested its first nuclear weapon, and I am afraid that we have been paying the price for being caught like rabbits in the headlights; every time the DPRK has advanced its technology, we have somehow wished it was not happening and turned the other way. So we are where we are now, and I fully understand the US reluctance to reassemble the six-party talks, because previous such talks have been so thwarted by the DPRK. In all fairness, I must say that there have been some successes during those talks. If we look at the other options—containment; living with the DPRK as a de facto nuclear-armed state; or military action—we see that we owe it to the whole world to try to reassemble the six-party talks. We can empty-chair the DPRK if it does not turn up, but we must show that we are making one last huge push before other options are pursued.

[Boris Johnson]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we are paying the price for previous complacency on this question. He is also absolutely right to say that we have had success in the past; we have shown that diplomacy and engagement can make a difference. We intend to pursue that path.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I urge the Foreign Secretary to carry on that quiet diplomacy. This must be one of the most frightening times in world history, as we really could be in a situation where a country such as North Korea would launch a missile. I want quiet diplomacy, but may I get the message across to the Foreign Secretary that that means working assiduously with all our allies? Yes, we must have serious conversations with the United States—that is unavoidable —but we must also work with all our friends and allies in Europe, particularly the Germans, the French and others, and particularly with NATO. We have heard very little about NATO in the recent days and weeks.

[Boris Johnson]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will be reassured to learn that I had long conversations last night with our Swedish friends—as he knows, they also have an embassy in Pyongyang—in addition to various other European colleagues.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

May I urge the Foreign Secretary to cheer up a bit and to cast his mind back 53 years to 1964, when red China, led by Mao Tse Tung, who was every bit as much of a murderous maniac as the current leader of North Korea, was about to acquire nuclear weapons? May I ask my right hon. Friend to face up to a couple of hard facts? First, he is clearly right to say that North Korea is determined on this path. Secondly, he is clearly right to say that China could stop it, but probably will not do so. Thirdly, if North Korea is determined to get nuclear weapons, it will get them and, what is more, we will deter it from using them. That is what happened with China, which we are now looking at as our friends, although it used to be led by exactly the same sort of regime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Boris Johnson]

I, of course, hugely admire the sangfroid of my right hon. Friend and his natural optimism. I hope he will forgive me if I, none the less, continue with what I think is the settled view of this House: we should pursue all diplomatic and peaceful means available to us to try to prevent North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons.

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

I have been talking to my many Korean constituents. May I tell the Foreign Secretary how alarmed they are and how worried they are for their families back in Korea and for their country? In rightly emphasising the case for a diplomatic solution, does he feel that the actions of President Trump are encouraging Beijing to go further, or are there other recommendations and approaches he would make to the White House to encourage China to do what only China can do?

[Boris Johnson]

As it happens, I think it is important that the United States says, as it does at the moment, that all options are on the table, but it is clearly the overwhelming desire of the US Administration to get a peaceful resolution to this crisis. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reassure his constituents in south London—I remember them well from when I used to represent them myself—that we are doing everything we can to protect South Korea.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I commend the tone of the Foreign Secretary’s statement, and I commend to him a strategy of trying to ensure that Pyongyang pays an ongoing price for this gross breach of the non-proliferation treaty. If there is a war option, it should be pretty clear that it must be North Korea that starts it.

[Boris Johnson]

I absolutely accept that point; the alternative is deeply undesirable, and not one that I think would commend itself to anybody in this House.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is clear not only that North Korea has developed much of its missile and nuclear capacity domestically, but that the country has received both physical and intellectual external assistance for its missile and nuclear programmes. Is the Foreign Secretary convinced that we have done all we can to intercept such help and to prevent North Korea from receiving further assistance?

[Boris Johnson]

We need to enforce the existing sanctions, as well as put new pressure on North Korea. There is currently an investigation into exactly how the country has managed to make this leap in technological ability. We are looking at the possible role that may have been played, inadvertently or otherwise, by some current and former nuclear states.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

It is clear that the House hopes overwhelmingly for a diplomatic solution to the crisis, but as the Foreign Secretary said that we stand by our allies, have we received any requests for potential military support from South Korea, Japan or, indeed, the United States? If so, what has been our response?

[Boris Johnson]

We have received no such requests so far, and our intention is to try to avoid the circumstances in which they could be made.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

It is a great pity that some Opposition Members have chosen this occasion to attack the President of the United States, rather than those who caused the current crisis: the North Koreans.

The effect of sanctions is likely to be limited because we are dealing with a deranged, selfish leader who cares little about the suffering in his own country. Will the Secretary of State tell us what assessment has been made of who is helping the North Koreans to develop their bombs and missiles? What steps will we take against those countries if it is shown that they are helping this tyrant in his aspiration to have the means to strike other countries?

[Boris Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman asks an extremely good question. As I indicated in my answer a moment ago, we are looking into that very question. We have our suspicions, but as yet we have no hard information.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

The financial burden of implementing UN resolution 2371 will largely fall on China. What proposals are there, from our friends elsewhere and from within our country, to help China to meet those costs? It is easy for us to say, “They won’t do it,” but surely we can do something to say, “If you take that step, we will do something to help you.”

[Boris Johnson]

I understand my hon. Friend’s good and interesting point. At the moment we think that the cost to China is pretty minimal in comparison with the impact on North Korea, but if that is raised by our Chinese friends, we will certainly consider it.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary may be aware that I am due to visit South Korea in the near future, with NATO allies. Who does he see as having the major responsibility for dealing with the crisis—is it America, the United Nations, or alliances from around the world? Who will spearhead the diplomatic effort, and will he give us a clear idea of where we sit in that?

[Boris Johnson]

I wish the hon. Lady every success in her trip to South Korea. When she goes there, I am sure she will have a clear feeling of the imminence of the threat posed by North Korea, not only with nuclear weapons but with conventional weapons. The answer to her question is simple: the two most important actors outside the Korean peninsula are of course China and the US. But the UK can play an important role in trying to bridge the gap between them and unite the international community around a common position.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The current Chinese ambassador to the Court of St James’s, Liu Xiaoming, has often made it clear that in his previous role as ambassador to Pyongyang the North Koreans were incredibly difficult to work with on almost everything. Given the timing of North Korea’s latest missile test, which could scarcely have been less convenient for Xi Jinping, does my right hon. Friend really believe that the Chinese have been able to exercise any restraint on Kim Jong-un so far and will be able to do so in future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Boris Johnson]

My hon. Friend speaks with great experience of the region and is entirely right in his analysis of the timing of the test and the effect it was meant to have on Xi Jinping and the Chinese leadership. That does not mean, though, that we should discount the Chinese ability to affect events in North Korea and China’s potential to do more.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

In the current situation, China has enormous power in the form of the 500,000 tonnes of crude oil that it exports to North Korea every year. What further steps can the Foreign Secretary take to encourage China to exercise that enormous power?

[Boris Johnson]

The best thing we can do is to continue our work with the UN Security Council, at which the Chinese have so far been absolutely in step with us. The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on oil, which we think is the next opportunity.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Do we believe that Kim Jong-un is a rational actor? Perhaps more importantly, does China believe he is?

[Boris Johnson]

I do not think we can simply assume Kim Jong-un is totally irrational. We have to hope that he is willing to take the interests of his people—the suffering people of North Korea—into account and that in the end he is willing to protect their interests. We have to ascribe some kind of rationality and humanity to him in the end.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

What lessons can be learned from the difficult negotiations with Iran, a country that was also described as being part of the axis of evil by President Bush some years ago?

[Boris Johnson]

That is a wonderful illustration of the vital importance of maintaining the joint comprehensive plan of action—the deal to restrict the development of Iran’s nuclear weapons that, as everybody knows, has been the subject of some controversy in Washington and that has been deprecated by some members of Congress. The value of coming to such arrangements with potential nuclear powers is evident.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Following on from that point, North Korea and Iran signed an agreement on science and technology co-operation in 2012. The Foreign Secretary said that certain countries are suspected of supporting North Korea’s weapons programmes; will he clarify whether Iran is one of those countries? When will the investigations into those suspicions be concluded so that everyone knows who those countries are and what action will be taken against them?

[Boris Johnson]

Tempted though I am, I do not think I can comment on that otherwise excellent question.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

The regime in Pyongyang is most certainly unpalatable, but it is important to remember that it may not be totally irrational. The Foreign Secretary’s alignment of Beijing’s policy with our own approach to the matter is commendable; is it worth considering what kind of security guarantees can be offered to North Korea? Trying to get a diplomatic solution means we have to allow for the possibility that there are some people in North Korea who take a rational view of their own future.

[Boris Johnson]

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is driving at, but we cannot get into the business of offering security guarantees to the North Korean regime when it is currently threatening to destroy New York and other cities and countries around the world.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this dramatic rise in the threat should send a powerful message to our NATO allies to meet their spending commitments?

[Boris Johnson]

Absolutely. Spot on.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

The nuclear escalation by North Korea is appalling and terrifying, especially to a generation that is too young to have lived through the fear of the cold war. When China is a voice of calm and even Russia is more measured than the US, it speaks volumes about the state of global diplomacy. I disagree with the Government’s cosying up to Donald Trump, but if there is to be any value in those actions, surely the Foreign Secretary should use his influence to make President Donald Trump use his phone for talking instead of sending inflammatory tweets into what is a fragile and precarious situation.

[Boris Johnson]

I really must disagree powerfully with the hon. Lady’s assertion that somehow this crisis has been whipped up by the Americans, the President or the White House when, if we look at the history not just over the past year, but over the past 10 or 30 years, we will see that this has been a movement towards the acquisition of thermonuclear weapons by a rogue state. We have now come to a point where we have to use all the diplomatic and peaceful means at our disposal to freeze that nuclear programme and to ensure a peaceful solution.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Britain, with its close and established ties with the United States and its strengthened ties with Japan, is in a unique position to bring together regional players to achieve the sort of regional solution that we need in order to avoid the instability that none of us in this House wants to see?

[Boris Johnson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That was why the Prime Minister’s trip to Japan was so timely and why her interventions there were so warmly welcomed not just by our Japanese friends, but by the South Koreans and many others. As my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary will confirm, the United Kingdom is committed to the security and stability of east Asia as much as it is to Europe.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The most likely start of a nuclear war will come by accident, by technical failure or by human error. The danger of that is greatly increased as world tension multiplies. Is it not true that, while there is no equivalence in this and we should pay credit to China for keeping the lid on paranoid regimes in North Korea for 60 years, the new element has been an American President who has managed to inflame every frozen conflict that he has addressed? Should it not be right that we take a British diplomatic, experienced view of this, with cooler heads, rather than follow the example of the apprentice President?

[Boris Johnson]

The new element is the increasing desire of the North Korean regime illegally to test nuclear weapons and threaten its neighbours and those further afield, and the acquisition of what looks like an intercontinental ballistic missile with what could be a hydrogen bomb capability. That is the new element, which requires international co-ordination to defeat.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

North Korea’s regime is partly financed by money laundered through Chinese regional banks and companies. In the US, the Treasury Department has taken decisive action to cut off those organisations—even those that are Chinese—from the financial system, and prosecutions have been launched in the past few days. Will the UK Government do exactly the same to those organisations operating out of the City of London?

[Boris Johnson]

We are certainly in favour of ensuring that all the sanctions that are currently in place are fully applied. If it is necessary to take action in respect of the City of London, we certainly shall do so.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

As the Foreign Secretary is on the record as saying that all options are on the table, may I press him a little bit more tonight to confirm that he has taken off the table any kind of UK support for military action? Will he give Government support to efforts that are already beginning to happen—I am talking about a longer-term process towards a phased and comprehensive approach to a north-east Asian nuclear weapons-free zone, which has cross-party support in Japan and South Korea?

[Boris Johnson]

I am grateful for the opportunity to point out that that is an entirely hypothetical question. I am very impressed by the mood of moderation in the House today. Everybody really wants a peaceful diplomatic solution, and that is what we are working towards.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Is it not a reality that further sanctions are unlikely to persuade this depraved regime to give up its illegal nuclear programme, even though it is beggaring its people in the process? Has the time not come to press again for six-party talks to include the North Korean regime if necessary?

[Boris Johnson]

My hon. Friend is very thoughtful on these matters. What we want is to freeze the North Korean nuclear programme, and diplomatic means are the best way forward.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Sanctions imposed by the UN on North Korea, especially those of the past year, are the strongest yet. Can the Secretary of State tell us what steps the Government are taking to ensure that all those sanctions are fully implemented and, crucially, enforced by all UN member states?

[Boris Johnson]

We have raised that at the UN repeatedly over the past few weeks, as the hon. Lady would expect us to do.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and the focus on seeking a peaceful diplomatic solution. Will he reassure me that we have also made it clear to our allies in the region that if they were the subject of an unprovoked military attack by North Korea, they would not face it alone?

[Boris Johnson]

As my hon. Friend knows, we are doing everything we can to make sure that that appalling possibility does not take place. That is our aim. As he will also know, much of the region—Japan and South Korea—is protected by an American guarantee. The new element in this equation is that North America could now itself be the victim of an ICBM from North Korea. That is why the situation is now so grave, and why we must make sure that we terminate this programme where it is.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

I was glad to see the emphasis on diplomacy in the Secretary of State’s statement today and to hear him say in media comments yesterday that there is no easy military solution. Considering that the North Korean regime above all craves security guarantees and normalised economic and diplomatic relations, does he agree that those are the key bargaining chips that might bring the regime back to the negotiating table with other partners to de-escalate this crisis?

[Boris Johnson]

I do. The hon. Gentleman has caught my sentiments exactly.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I do agree that this crisis has been created by the missile tests and thermonuclear test last week by the North Korean regime, which clearly is not acting like a rational nation state. I thank the Foreign Secretary for his approach and for using the UN Security Council to put pressure on China and to restart the six-nations talks. However, on Sunday, the President of the United States made a public statement on Twitter, as is his wont, saying:

“South Korea is finding, as I have told them, that their talk of appeasement with North Korea will not work, they only understand one thing!”

Is that our approach? Are we saying that the approach of regional nations such as South Korea amounts to appeasement? The “one thing” he mentions is clearly military action. Are we pressing all the other options on the United States?

[Boris Johnson]

It is not so much that we are pressing all the options on the United States—though of course we are—but that those are the options that the United States itself massively prefers and wants to bring about.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

Korea—I speak of it as a nation and not as two divided political states—is at a crossroads in its political, social and economic future. It is a future that may well impact on the very fabric of the People’s Republic of China, and China knows that only too well. I was glad to hear the Foreign Secretary mention China in such friendly tones; it was extremely welcome. In playing its part in defending peace, I hope that the Government do so by asking some practicalities of the Government of the United States as well as of the People’s Republic of China. Do they recognise, for instance, that the Korean nation and the world require the United States and China to work in partnership and use their leverage? Is it not the case that we require mutually assured restraint, as espoused by the sociologist Amitai Etzioni, to bring about a full and comprehensive peace in Korea?

[Boris Johnson]

I am delighted to hear Amitai Etzioni quoted on the subject of Korea. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to focus on the partnership and potential of the relationship between the US and China. They hold the key to the question between them, but, as I say, where there are differences it can be our task to try to help to bridge the gap, then unite the rest of the international community on a common position.

Annual Human Rights and Democracy Report

Boris Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2017 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)]

I have today laid before Parliament a copy of the 2016 Foreign and Commonwealth Office report on human rights and democracy (Cm 9487).

The report highlights policy developments on human rights issues overseas in 2016.0

The report assesses the human rights situation in 30 countries which FCO has designated as its human rights priority countries. These are: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Burma, Burundi, Central African Republic, China, Colombia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Libya, Maldives, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Yemen and Zimbabwe.

This report focuses on how the Government are striving to protect and promote human rights around the world. In the two centuries since Britain became the first country to outlaw the slave trade, this country has helped to lead the struggle for justice and decency. The Government’s approach towards human rights stands in this long tradition, based on the firm belief that our values are not only right in themselves but the key to prosperity and development.

[HCWS90]

Foreign and Commonwealth Office Services

Boris Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2017 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)]

FCO Services operates as a trading fund of the FCO. Pursuant to section 4(6) of the Government Trading Funds Act 1973 (as amended by the Government Trading Act 1990), I hereby lay copies of FCO Services’ Annual Report and Accounts 2016-2017 before the House.

The report has been endorsed by the FCO Services Board and the FCO Services Audit and Risk Assurance Committee (on which sits the lead National Audit Office auditor and the head of FCO Internal Audit). It has also been examined by the FCO Partnership Board.

On 3 July 2017, the Comptroller and Auditor General formally signed off the report and accounts.

For the reasons above, and upon my own examination, I am satisfied that the annual report and accounts represent a true and fair account of FCO Services’ performance.

[HCWS72]

International Criminal Justice: Support and Funding

Boris Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2017 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)]

Monday 17 July marked the Day of International Criminal Justice. This is an opportunity to restate the UK’s strong commitment to the principles of international justice and to reflect on our political and financial support to international justice, including through our support for the International Criminal Court (ICC) and international tribunals.

International criminal justice promotes the rule of law and is underpinned by the principle that there should be no impunity for the most serious crimes of international concern such as war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Over the past year, we have continued to voice our support for these values and taken action to put them into practice.

In 2016, we demonstrated the UK’s commitment to international justice by contributing £8.1 million to the ICC: £1.1 million to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY); £400,000 to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR); and £770,000 to the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (MICT). The UK also contributed £1 million in voluntary funding to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), and smaller amounts to the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) and the Residual Special Court for Sierra Leone (RSCSL). The UK is delivering practical support for the RSCSL with former Liberian president Charles Taylor serving his sentence for war crimes in a British prison. In December, the UK co-sponsored a UN resolution to establish the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism (IIIM) to investigate crimes in Syria and has contributed £200,000 towards its start-up costs. In September 2016, at the UN General Assembly, the Foreign Secretary, alongside the Foreign Ministers of Iraq and Belgium, launched a campaign to bring Daesh to justice. This is a critical and global effort to ensure Daesh is held accountable for its crimes.

Our support is designed to enable the fight against impunity and prosecute those responsible for perpetrating genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The UK believes that achieving justice for victims should be at the heart of the international community’s response to mass atrocity violence. To this end, the UK contributed £150,000 to the ICC’s trust fund for victims, which provides physical and psychological rehabilitation, material support and reparations to victims and their families.

At the ICC, by the end of 2016, there were 10 situations under investigation: Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo, Darfur, Central African Republic I, Kenya, Cote d’lvoire, Libya, Central African Republic II, Mali and Georgia. In addition, there were 10 preliminary examinations: Afghanistan, Colombia, Nigeria, Guinea, Iraq, Burundi, Ukraine, Gabon, the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and registered vessels of Comoros, Greece and Cambodia. In 2016, the Court saw its first convictions on the basis of “command responsibility” for the crime of rape, intentionally attacking historic and religious monuments, and for witness and evidence tampering. The Court also made its first substantive award of individual and collective reparations to compensate victims of the DRC war criminal, Germain Katanga.

At the ICTY, the UN’s first war crimes tribunal prepares to close its doors at the end of the year. Before closing, the tribunal is expected to deliver key verdicts in the trial of Ratko Mladic, former army commander of the Republika Sprska and in the appeal by six senior Croat military and police officers against their convictions. Like Radovan Karadzic who was sentenced to 40 years’ imprisonment in March 2016, Mladic faces charges of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

When the work of the ICTR ended in 2015, the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals (MICT) took on its remaining functions, ensuring a smooth transition. The MICT will also take on the residual work of the ICTY, including its legacy, at its closure by the end of 2017.

This is the fifth annual update to Parliament on the FCO’s work to support international justice.

[HCWS59]

Oral Answers to Questions

Boris Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

1. What steps his Department is taking to help tackle the illegal trade in wildlife.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)]

I wish to begin by congratulating Iraq’s security forces on liberating Mosul from the pitiless grasp of Daesh. The flag of Iraq flies once more in the country’s second city and I pay tribute to the pilots of the RAF who played a vital role in supporting this operation, delivering more airstrikes than anyone else apart from the United States. The House can take pride in what they have done.

On the illegal wildlife trade, we can be pleased with the agreement that the Prime Minister helped to secure at the G20 summit in Hamburg. It is about cracking down not only on the trade in charismatic megafauna, but on those who engage in gunrunning, people trafficking and much other human misery, as well as illegal wildlife trafficking. We can be proud of what we are doing.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I applaud the efforts the Government are making in this area. I am also pleased that the UK will host the illegal wildlife trade conference in 2018. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm how much money the Department has committed to tackling the illegal wildlife trade and how effectively the money is being spent?

[Boris Johnson]

I can confirm that we are increasing our contribution to £26 million—another £13 million to tackle the illegal wildlife trade. I have myself seen what UK-financed projects are doing in Kenya to crack down on this vile trade.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I say to the Foreign Secretary that we simply have to give this subject a much higher priority than we do—not only our Government, but across the world. Every week or month we see programmes on our televisions—55 African elephants are poached every day. He has to make this a priority. It is not good enough for us to look at our television screens and feel sorry about it—we have to have a far greater commitment to do something about it.

[Boris Johnson]

I completely share the hon. Gentleman’s zeal and passion. The UK has in fact been in the lead on this for several years now, and we will continue to push the agenda, not just at the G20, as the Prime Minister did, but at the IWT summit that we will host in October 2018 in London.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend talk a little about his strategy on this issue, because the link between the illegal wildlife trade, smuggling, people trafficking, and lawlessness and violence in many countries is extremely real? Addressing the illegal wildlife trade may seem esoteric, but it is not: it is about the stability of many nations that are firm partners of the United Kingdom.

[Boris Johnson]

My hon. Friend is right: this is far from esoteric. It not only touches the hearts of millions of people in our country—as the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) said—but helps to cause increased human misery. The same people are involved in trade in drugs, arms and people, worth up to £13 billion a year, and we are playing a major part in frustrating that trade.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

There is increasing evidence that the UK’s legal ivory market has been used as cover for illegal trade. What discussions will the Foreign Secretary have with colleagues about an all-out ban on the ivory trade, as previously committed to?

[Boris Johnson]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have a commitment to an all-out ban on the sale of ivory in this country, and that is what we intend to pursue.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

2. What steps his Department is taking to help support and deliver an effective departure for the UK from the EU.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

14. What steps his Department is taking to help support and deliver an effective departure for the UK from the EU.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)]

My Department continues to support EU exit negotiations, and the Government work to strengthen our relations with partners worldwide. As a champion of free trade, we will continue to seize the opportunities afforded by Brexit and guarantee our long-term global prosperity.

[Rachel Maclean]

Businesses in my constituency are seeking to make the most of the opportunities that Brexit provides for them, but can my right hon. Friend assure me that he will work closely with the Department for International Trade and the Department for Exiting the European Union to ensure that businesses that are already trading with the single market are helped to build new export markets for their goods and services around the world, to secure their continued prosperity?

[Boris Johnson]

Absolutely. I congratulate my hon. Friend on what I believe is her first question—I think it is a very good one. She can reassure her constituents that not only will the excellent companies in her constituency be able to continue to enjoy free trade with the rest of the European Union—with the EU27—but they will, of course, have the additional opportunity afforded by the new free trade deals that we will be able to strike with countries around the world. I am pleased to say that they were queuing up to make that point to the Prime Minister at the G20 in Hamburg.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Today is the feast day of St Benedict, the patron saint of Europe, who famously warned about “murmuring in the community” against the abbess. Will my right hon. Friend please proclaim that we do not want any murmuring from anyone against our vision of an open, free trade Europe—the best possible free trade deal, leading the world towards free trade and untold prosperity?

[Boris Johnson]

My hon. Friend has made an excellent point. Members on both sides of the House know very well that 80% or 85% of us were elected on a very clear manifesto pledge to come out of the European Union, to come out of the single market and—as the leader of the Labour party has said—to come out of the customs union as well. Nothing could be clearer than that. I think that what the people of this country want us to do is get on and deliver a great Brexit, and I have no doubt that, with the support of Opposition Members, we can achieve it.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Does the Foreign Secretary agree with the Chancellor and the First Secretary of State that we shall need a transitional period of at least three years during which we will remain under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice?

[Boris Johnson]

No. Neither the Chancellor nor the First Secretary of State has said any such thing.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker.

In March, the Foreign Secretary said that leaving the EU with no deal would be perfectly okay. Last month, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that that would be a very, very bad outcome for Britain. Given that the two positions are clearly completely contradictory, who should the British public believe?

[Boris Johnson]

I think that what the British public can take from both the Chancellor and myself—and, indeed, from the vast majority of Labour Members, as I understand their position—is that we all want to get on and do the deal, to do the best deal possible, and to leave the EU.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

What lessons does my right hon. Friend take from the Australian Government, who negotiated free trade deals with China, Japan and South Korea in very short order by focusing on trade itself rather than getting bogged down in disputes with regard to standards, legalities and regulations?

[Boris Johnson]

I agree very much with what my hon. Friend has said. I think that, with a bit of gumption and a bit of positive energy, there is no limit to what we can achieve, and we should get on and do it. Of course, we cannot ink in the free trade deals now, but we can certainly pencil in the outlines.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Yesterday, the Prime Minister’s spokesman was reported as saying that,

“the transition rules could involve the European Court of Justice for a limited time…that’s all a matter for negotiation.”

That is the quote that was reported. So can the Foreign Secretary confirm this change in Government policy, and set out the rationale behind it?

[Boris Johnson]

We are in a negotiation whose objective is to come out from under the penumbra of the European Court of Justice, and outside the EU legal order, and that is what we will achieve.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Since we joined the Common Market on 1 January 1973 until the date we leave, we will have given the EU and its predecessors, in today’s money in real terms, a total of £209 billion. Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear to the EU that if it wants a penny piece more, it can go whistle?

[Boris Johnson]

I am sure that my hon. Friend’s words will have broken like a thunderclap over Brussels and they will pay attention to what he has said. He makes a very valid point; the sums that I have seen that they propose to demand from this country seem to me to be extortionate, and I think that to “go whistle” is an entirely appropriate expression.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

21. Will the Secretary of State ensure, in a spirit of co-operation, that the final Brexit deal is endorsed by the devolved Parliaments before it is signed?

[Boris Johnson]

As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, we work closely under the Joint Ministerial Committee to bring in the devolved Administrations and make sure the great deal we are going to get has their endorsement and approval.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Further to the question by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), did my right hon. Friend hear the report on the “Today” programme this morning that other European leaders were making it clear that they would not accept a deal on any terms, and does he share my view that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander?

[Boris Johnson]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the birth of what I believe is his sixth child. He makes a very good point about the negotiating stance of our friends and partners across the channel. They do sound at the moment pretty hard over, as we say in the Foreign Office, but I have no doubt that in the fullness of time a suppleness will descend, and a willingness to compromise, because, after all, a great Brexit deal, a great free trade deal, and a deep and special partnership is in the interests of both sides of the channel.

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

Given the Prime Minister’s appeal to these Benches to help her out today, where does the Foreign Secretary think there are areas for compromise?

[Boris Johnson]

As I have said before, the striking thing about this debate is how much unanimity there really is between the two sides of the Chamber on these fundamental questions, and I have been very struck that the leader of the Labour party seems to be very much on all fours with the objectives of the Brexit—[Interruption.] He very much agrees with the position we are taking, and I hope to see him in the Lobby with us.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I hate to disagree with the Foreign Secretary: while he is right to say that the Leader of the Opposition is fully behind the Government and those on the Conservative Benches are fully behind the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, the Opposition are hopelessly split on this issue, and is that not hindering the Government’s negotiating position?

[Boris Johnson]

It is not for me to comment on the ability of the Labour leader to control his own party. I take it that Labour Members are all following official Labour party policy, which is to come out of the EU and the single market. If they are not, they can stand up now and, by their questions, betray their real position, but as far as I know they are supporting the will of the British people as expressed last year. If they wish to dissent from that, now is the time.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

May I start by welcoming the new Foreign Office Front Benchers to their positions? Back in July last year, they chastised me when I wrongly accused them of being an all-male team. If only I had waited a year, I would have been correct after all.

Talking of female Tory MPs, the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) used a disgusting, racist phrase in her comments at the East India Club, and I hope the Foreign Secretary will join me in condemning them; I hope he will agree that derogatory, offensive language deriving from the era of American slavery has no place in modern society. But the hon. Lady was at least trying to ask a valid question—a question about what would happen if Britain failed to reach a deal on Brexit. So may I ask the Foreign Secretary to answer that question today? Can he explain what that no deal option would mean for the people and businesses of Great Britain?

[Boris Johnson]

As I said before, the chances of such an outcome are vanishingly unlikely, since it is manifestly in the interests of those on both sides of the channel to get a great free trade deal and a new deep and special partnership between us and the European Union. That is what we are going to achieve.

[Emily Thornberry]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for that answer, but unfortunately it leaves us none the wiser. This is slightly baffling because it was, after all, the Prime Minister—the Prime Minister for now, at least—who decided to put the no deal option on the table. She could not stop using the phrase during the election campaign. But now, when we ask what it would mean in practice, the Government refuse to tell us. The Foreign Affairs Committee said in December:

“The Government should require each Department to produce a ‘no deal’ plan, outlining the likely consequences…and setting out proposals to mitigate potential risks.”

It went on to state that anything less would be a “dereliction of duty”, and that we cannot have a repeat—

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

Given that a plan for no deal would be worse than that dereliction of duty, will the Foreign Secretary spell out publicly what no deal would mean? If he is not prepared to tell us that publicly, can he reassure us that at the very least he has a detailed private plan to manage that risk?

[Boris Johnson]

There is no plan for no deal, because we are going to get a great deal. For the sake of illustration, I remind the right hon. Lady that there was a time, which I am old enough to remember, when Britain was not in what we then called the Common Market.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

3. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on celebrating the 400th anniversary of the Mayflower pilgrims in 2020 in the UK and abroad.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

4. What steps he is taking to support economic and political development in Ukraine.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)]

The UK is in the lead on this issue, helping Ukraine to make the vital reforms that it needs, and to continue to crack down on corruption, which is so important if we are going to encourage long-term and continued investment in a successful Ukraine.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the organisation last week of the Ukraine reform conference in London, which demonstrated that Britain will continue to play a leading role on the world stage in the years to come. Can he confirm that, while Ukraine still faces major challenges, progress is being made in areas such as tackling corruption? Will he also tell us what more can be done to assist it?

[Boris Johnson]

May I get the ball back over the net by congratulating my right hon. Friend on becoming chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine? All of us in this House have a clear interest in a strong and successful Ukraine, which is why we have invested another £33 million in helping the Ukrainians to tackle their governance problems. The House should be in no doubt about what is going on in Ukraine. It is, if you like, an arm wrestle between two value systems: our way of looking at the world and the Russian way of looking at the world. It is vital for our continent and for this country that our way prevails. With British help, I believe that it is prevailing and will prevail.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

23. Is not one of the real problems that the Russians are actively meddling in Ukraine? So far, there has been no sign of all the efforts that Britain has rightly made paying dividends in Russia stopping its corrupt meddling in that country.

[Boris Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the fault lies squarely with Russia. Russia annexed Crimea and continues to drive the problems in the Donbass. The UK is contributing to the efforts to stave off Russian military meddling with the non-lethal equipment that we have agreed to send to Ukraine. More importantly, however, we are engaged in helping the Ukrainians to sort out their domestic political scene and to crack down on corruption. To be fair to them, not only are they seeing growth of 1.5% or 4%, depending on whose figures are to be believed, but they have made more progress in cracking down on corruption in the past three years than in the past 25 years. A very different country is being born.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

5. What recent assessment he has made of the strength of the UK's diplomatic relations with Canada.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

10. What steps the Government are taking to support the implementation of the Paris agreement on climate change.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)]

The United Kingdom was instrumental in securing the Paris agreement on climate change. We are helping other countries to meet their targets and we are confident that we will be able to meet our own groundbreaking target of reducing emissions by 80% by 2050.

[Alex Norris]

Last week, Downing Street said that the Prime Minister intended to challenge President Trump on climate change at the G20 meeting. Would it not have been better to do that before he announced that the United States was pulling out of the Paris agreement, rather than after?

[Boris Johnson]

As I have told the House before, we have repeatedly made our views clear to the US Administration. We have expressed our dismay that they have withdrawn, but on the other hand all Members, on both sides of the House, should in all fairness acknowledge that the United States has made and continues to make, even under this Administration, substantial progress in reducing greenhouse gases. This country has reduced CO₂ emissions by 42% since 1990, despite a 67% increase in GDP; the United States has achieved comparable progress, and we intend to encourage it on that path.

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

Following Donald Trump’s isolation on the issue of the Paris agreement at last week’s G20 summit, and his further postponement of his visit to the UK, I ask the Secretary of State a simple question: do the Government still regard President Trump as the leader of the free world? If so, how do they rate the job he is doing, as a mark out of 10?

[Boris Johnson]

I hesitate to say it, but we certainly regard as very considerable the Prime Minister’s achievement in getting the US President to sign up to the G20 agreement on climate change, as she did.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

What?

[Boris Johnson]

Absolutely right. The Prime Minister was instrumental in getting the Americans to sign up to the communiqué. Members on both sides of the House will appreciate that whatever their disagreements with the current incumbent of the White House, the President of the United States is the leader of our most important ally, and he therefore deserves this country’s respect and consideration.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

11. What discussions he has had with his counterparts in other countries on promoting human rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)]

My immediate priority is to help to resolve the tensions in the Gulf, where Britain has old friendships and vital interests. That is why I have just returned from visits to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar, where I reinforced the need for dialogue and de-escalation. Tomorrow, I will attend a summit in Trieste on the western Balkans region, where the UK is playing a vital role in guaranteeing stability and resisting Russian ambitions.

[Bob Blackman]

In Jammu Kashmir yesterday terrorists brutally murdered seven Hindu pilgrims, including five women, as they undertook amaranth yatra. What action has my right hon. Friend taken to condemn that terrorist outrage, and what support will he give to recovering and bringing to justice the terrorists, who, we believe, emanate from Pakistan?

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that if there is to be an extension of military action in Syria there should be a full debate and vote in the House?

[Boris Johnson]

That is for the Leader of the House to consider, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that no such request has been made. The difference in the American Administration’s attitude and engagement, for which many Opposition Members have called, is to be welcomed.

[Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

T2. As America appears to be voluntarily surrendering both power and influence, and with our impending departure from the main platform of our influence over the past several decades, is it not vital that the Foreign Office now invests substantially to beef up our diplomatic effort so that we may retain our prosperity, security and influence abroad?

[Boris Johnson]

I am delighted to welcome my right hon. Friend to a cause that is gathering strength among Members on both sides of the House. Everybody understands that a truly global Britain must be properly supported and financed. We have a world-class network of 278 embassies and legations across the world. We have the best foreign service in the world, but it needs proper financing and support.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

T4. The Foreign Secretary has spoken in the past about his ardent opposition to female genital mutilation. Will he therefore have a word with the Home Secretary, who is yet to respond to me and my constituent Lola Ilesanmi? She is threatened with deportation and her child faces mutilation. I raised her case with the Prime Minister but have yet to receive an answer.

[Boris Johnson]

I think I heard the hon. Lady raise this matter before. The case of her constituent is, indeed, very troubling. I am sure that the Home Secretary will have picked up what the hon. Lady has said today.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

T3. I welcome the part played by British forces in stabilising the threat posed by Daesh. What role does my right hon. Friend see for British forces in ensuring that such an insurgency does not recur?

[Boris Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for a really excellent question. It is one thing for us to drive Daesh out of Mosul and Raqqa, but we must ensure that the reasons it sprouted in those cities do not recur and that the Sunni minority in Iraq have conditions of governance that give them confidence in the future of their country.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

T5. Not since the Suez crisis have the United Kingdom Government been so comprehensively defeated at the United Nations as they were last week over the Chagos Islands. In this week’s spirit of bipartisan co-operation, should the Foreign Secretary not just grant the right of return?

[Boris Johnson]

I respectfully disagree with the hon. Gentleman. In point of fact, we secured rather more positive votes than we expected. As it happens, the other side of the case got fewer than half the members of the UN in support of its cause. Most impartial observers would agree that that side of the case had been substantially weakened as a result—not that it was a strong case to begin with.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

T10. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said last week that he would continue paying prisoner salaries, even to people who have murdered innocent civilians, if it cost him his job. Does the Minister agree that there is no way in which there will be peace in the middle east without co-existence projects and support for co-existence on the Palestinian side?

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) We are having]

T6. Foreign Office questions, and still my constituent Ray Tindall and the other men of the Chennai Six are incarcerated in India. Will the Secretary of State pick up the phone to his opposite number in India and do a deal to get the men deported so that Ray and I can have a pint in Chester before the summer is out?

[Boris Johnson]

I appreciate the persistence with which the hon. Gentleman campaigns for his constituents. He has raised this issue with me several times. As he would like, I have personally raised the matter repeatedly with my Indian counterparts. They have told me that they cannot interfere in their court system any more than we can interfere in our own. That is where the matter currently stands, but I assure him that we continue to raise it on his behalf and on behalf of his constituents.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

It is striking that Commonwealth countries trade 25% more with each other at a cost that is 90% lower than with non-Commonwealth countries. Does the Minister agree that, as we leave the EU, we have a great opportunity to boost our mutual trade and security interests by enhancing our diplomatic relations with Ghana and other Commonwealth countries?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Foreign Secretary meet the members of the all-party group for friends of Syria to discuss the desperate need to get more aid to the hundreds of thousands being starved to death by al-Assad in Syria?

[Boris Johnson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his persistence in pursuing this cause. He is absolutely right, and we have spoken across this Chamber many times about the humanitarian crisis in Syria. I will have great pleasure in meeting the Syria group to discuss what the UK is doing, but the House will know that this country is the second biggest contributor of humanitarian relief aid to Syria in the world.

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

While I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister raised the issue of the Chennai Six with Mr Modi at the G20, may I urge my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to focus his efforts on the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and to seek an urgent meeting with her? Our boys have been languishing in jail there for almost four years—I visited them myself—and it is time, frankly, that they were brought home.

[Boris Johnson]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He suggests an interesting avenue for further work. I will certainly look at the possibility of talking to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. Whether we will be any more successful with her in making our points, I will ascertain, but we will leave no stone unturned.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Last week, at the same time as representatives of 57 Parliaments were meeting in Minsk to discuss co-operation on human rights issues, the Belarusian authorities were convicting a human rights activist on charges on which defence witnesses were not allowed to testify. The defendant was taken to hospital during the trial and convicted in his absence. What action are the Government taking to make sure that the authorities in Belarus recognise the absolute right of anyone to a fair trial?

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

As well as the physical rebuilding of Mosul, one of the ways to reassure the people of Mosul is to devolve power to them, for which the Iraqi constitution allows. Will the Foreign Secretary urge the Iraqi Administration to look seriously at devolving power to the people of Mosul?

[Boris Johnson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is of course right. Iraq is an ethnically divided and religiously divided country. We must make sure that everybody feels properly represented in the new constitution, and devolution to Mosul is certainly an option that we will be exploring.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), before the Foreign Secretary meets the all-party friends of Syria group, will he discuss a comprehensive strategy to protect civilians with the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence so that we can have a proper joined-up strategy at last?

[Boris Johnson]

I can tell the hon. Lady that that is already happening.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Hong Kong Special Administrative Region: 20th Anniversary

Boris Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2017 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)]

1 July marks the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the Hong Kong special administrative region (SAR). The UK joins Hong Kong in celebrating the success of the SAR, and its continued prosperity and vitality. Hong Kong is dynamic, innovative and forward-looking. Hong Kong’s success is built on its high degree of autonomy, as enshrined in the Sino-British Joint Declaration and Basic Law (Hong Kong’s constitution), centred on key freedoms, strong rule of law, and an independent judiciary.

As set out in the Government’s latest six-monthly report to the House on 24 February, the Government’s assessment remains that the “one country, two systems” principle is functioning well in the vast majority of areas. “One country, two systems” has allowed the UK’s relationship with Hong Kong to flourish across a whole range of areas, including trade and investment, education, science, innovation and technology. Hong Kong is our second biggest export market in Asia with UK exports worth just over £8 billion and over 630 British companies have offices in the territory. Both the UK and Hong Kong SAR Governments share the same commitment to making global trade easier and more transparent.

The UK recognise the specific concerns over the implementation of “one country, two systems”, as set out in the Government’s six-monthly reports to the House. The UK believes that it is vital for Hong Kong’s continued success that the SAR’s high degree of autonomy and rule of law are preserved and that the principle of “one country, two systems” is fully upheld. The UK therefore welcomes statements by the Chinese Government and the Hong Kong SAR Government expressing commitment to the faithful implementation of “one country, two systems”.

The UK continue to believe that it is in Hong Kong’s best interests that discussion resumes between all parties in Hong Kong in order to make further progress towards a more democratic and accountable system of Government, as provided for in the Basic Law.

The UK Government congratulate the new Chief Executive of the Hong Kong SAR Government, Carrie Lam, on her forthcoming inauguration on 1 July, and wish her a successful term in office. The UK Government look forward to working with the Chief Executive to deepen UK-Hong Kong relations and support Hong Kong to prosper long into the future.

[HCWS19]